Young Lawyers

Against the background of the exponential increase in the number of lawyers, the profession, controlled by an “old guard”, began to protect itself by setting up various obstacles in the form of interviews, then exams, but especially in the form of tutelage imposed on trainee lawyers for the internship. and finally, by the final examination in the profession.

Until the heyday of 1995-1997, the legal profession knew few and insignificant professional filters, so that only those who did not want did not become lawyers . Among those who first entered the bar were former communist-era judges, former prosecutors, former police officers, and last but not least, former security guards. They brought to the profession the whole slag of the Ceausescu era, all the grasps and all the known techniques of manipulation and blackmail. Until now, their privileged position in the profession has been timidly or not at all attacked by young lawyers, so the old guard still controls the lawyer from key positions, taking care to establish additional barriers just to further secure their position.

Now, young lawyers are chronically marginalized, with the Bars doing nothing substantially to facilitate their beginnings in the profession, or possibly to protect their dignity and prevent them from falling into compromise. On the contrary, through successive regulations, the managements of the Bars introduced additional obstacles, especially of patrimonial order (enormous taxes, without correspondent in actual benefits [7] ) with reference to the access to the profession, to the establishment of cabinets, secondary offices, etc.

In addition, the statute of the profession contains express provisions regarding the minimum uninterrupted seniority in the profession of 8 years for a lawyer to hold representative positions in bar councils or UNBR council, while the minimum length of eligibility in disciplinary commissions is for no less than 10 years !

A simple calculation shows that in the elections to be held for the bar councils and the UNBR council in 2007, at most lawyers active in the profession at the latest in the spring of 1999 are eligible. In other words, the participation of younger generations in the structures is practically excluded. professional for at least another term, until 2010 !. Lawyer Ştefan Baranga, a septuagenarian with a young conscience, and an old whistler in the church, remarked with humor in the noise of the General Assembly of the Bucharest Bar held at the Palace Hall on March 11, 2006 that “it is completely absurd the claim of young lawyers to occupy one or two seats on the Bar Council [consisting of 15 elected members – nn]on the occasion of the next elections: given that young people under 35 represent over 80% of the 7190 lawyers of the Bucharest Bar , they, young people, should occupy the MAJORITY of counselor positions, and retirees should hope to have a representative! ”.

However, it cannot be said that the young generation of lawyers is ready to take over the leadership of the bodies of the profession, as the only school he attended was the venal school and sprinkled with humiliations and hypocrisy of formal internship with masters of the old guard. Young lawyers, trainees or permanent ones, hate (when they can be honest) their masters and the destiny they had at the beginning of their career. The paradigm in which they evolved is well known: in most cases they had to pay a salary to find a mentor or they had to work without pay during the internship, they even issued tax receipts for fictitious fees. to venal masters, who are always looking for deductible expenses in order to reduce the tax base.

It is relatively easy to see how the state of accentuated economic and moral dependence during the internship deeply imprinted the consciences of many lawyers of the new generations, bringing them to an embarrassing common denominator of the profession, in the area of ​​intellectual mediocrity but, of ‑ good / de Bad, and relative material prosperity.

There are also lawyers engaged in a deafening struggle for subsistence in the shady area of ​​the distribution and payment of “offices” (criminal cases in which ex officio assistance is mandatory) through the bars. The scandals in this mud are chained to the topic of favoritism shown by those lawyers from the bar councils who are directly involved in the allocation of offices.